The resolution council members will consider goes further than mere opposition: it says the city shouldn’t do business with any companies “involved with designing, building, or financing” Trump’s marquee policy project.

It seems a good bet the resolution proposed by Council woman Georgette Gómez will stop at the mayor’s office.

Since Trump started talking about the wall first as a candidate then president, Faulconer has been cautious in reacting. He has largely avoided tackling the issue head-on, and instead has repeatedly extolled the importance and virtue of the San Diego-Tijuana economic, social and cultural ties — and generally urging against anything that could diminish them.

Even the resolution’s simple, symbolic statement against the wall likely would be treated with trepidation in the executive suite at City Hall. But the notion of banning companies from doing business with the city jacks up the degree of difficulty in getting the Republican mayor’s backing. (Faulconer can veto resolutions, though the council can override with votes of at least six of the nine members.)

The council budget committee on Wednesday was split 2-2 along party lines over the resolution. Democrats hold a 5-4 majority on the full council, so the odds of passage are decent. An override, not so much.

Faulconer has received national attention for being a counterpoint, though not outspoken opponent, of key Trump policies. They differ dramatically on climate change, for example. On the issue at hand, Faulconer talks about how San Diego is building bridges across the border, and not just in attitude.

The relatively new Cross Border Xpress bridge to Rodriguez International Airport stands in stark contrast to where Trump is headed.

Faulconer may well be against Trump’s plans but direct confrontation isn’t his style and, for him, probably not a good idea politically if he still has hopes of someday being the GOP standard bearer in California.

The notion of not allowing the city to do business with anybody involved with the wall may be what’s really problematic for Faulconer — who has control over city contracting. He’s pro-business, of course, and might not view companies that participate in the Trump project as immoral, as some of the Democrats do.

But there’s political risk if he vetoes the resolution. Surely he would be branded as a supporter of the Trump wall by Democrats in a statewide race.

Then there’s the legal argument. In Sacramento legislation is pending to do on the state level what some council members want to do at the city. But some legal experts say banning such businesses from state contracts could be unconstitutional, though there’s dispute over that. In any event, legal challenges would be likely.

Now, a resolution doesn’t have the force of a municipal ordinance, but the debate would be out there.

Following the council committee action, Faulconer spokesman Craig Gustafson put out a statement very much like ones we’ve heard before:

“San Diego's border works because we have barriers to discourage illegal activity but also bridges to encourage the legal exchange of people, goods and ideas. We have strong economic and cultural binational ties that have the Mayor’s unwavering support.”

Gustafson said the mayor would withhold taking a position on the resolution until he sees the language.

Gómez’s communications director, Roberto C. Torres, noted after the vote that there could be changes before the full council takes up the measure.

Is the wall bad for business?

Another organization isn’t often teamed up with such a coalition, but carried much the same message: the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

“The fact is, we already have enough barriers, barriers and inefficiencies at our border that cost our nations billions of dollars in lost economic activity,” said Paola Ávila, the chamber’s vice president for international business affairs, told the City Council budget committee.

While San Diego business leaders aren’t the most vociferous opponents of Trump's plans for an extended wall, they tend to espouse a stronger dislike of it than Faulconer — at least the chamber, anyway.

What really galls them is just a fraction of the money that would go to the border wall ($25 billion to $100 billion) could speed up crossing the border for goods and individuals so much we wouldn't recognize it.

Earlier this year, when Trump took action to advance the wall and his administration was talking about taxing goods coming across the border, chamber President and CEO Jerry Sanders saw it all as a threat, or at least misplaced priorities.

“We’ve made great progress in recent years improving trade and commerce with Mexico and I’d be opposed to anything that would harm binational trade and the creation of local jobs,” the former San Diego mayor said. “I’d rather see the federal government spend money on our nation’s aging highways, bridges and other infrastructure.”

Sometimes the debate rages on locally as if a fence hasn’t been here for decades. Many in the business communities on both sides of the border tend to view it as a logistical problem, an obstacle to get around.

"We already have a wall,” Ávila said in January, “and we can build a bridge over a wall."